NOTE M. (Page 101.)

It is the opinion of Bishop Horsley that the whole of this passage in Matthew refers exclusively to St. Peter and to his personal prerogatives above the rest of the Apostles. Hence the learned prelate considers the subsequent grant of the power of "binding and loosing," to the other Apostles, of which we have an account in Matt. xviii. 18. as respecting merely the power of exercising discipline in the Church, which he views as the special property of the priesthood in all ages. It is obvious however that he assumes that a different interpretation must be given of the phrase to bind and to loose in one passage from what it possesses in the other. As applied to Peter he considers it as meaning authoritatively to declare what was binding and what was abrogated; as applied to the other Apostles, he confines it to the administration of discipline. In the one case it is made to refer to institutions, and in the other, to persons. Now for this distinction there is no proof whatever adduced by the Bishop; and if the reasons be valid in support of the first interpretation, the same interpretation should be given of the phrase in the other passage. There is no difficulty in barmonising these passages. The power of "binding and loosing" was first given to St. Peter, and then to all the disciples as their common property; and the history of the Acts of the Apostles It is however worthy of proves that they exercised it together.

observation, that the " keys of the kingdom of heaven" were NOT given to the rest of the Apostles. Only one disciple could first preach to the Jews and to the Gentiles, and in this the true primacy of St. Peter consisted. Here and here only, he was alone.

NOTE N. (Page 120.)

With respect to the election of Matthias to fill the vacant office in the Apostleship, I fully agree with the opinion of

M'Knight; and I conceive it derives no small confirmation from the circumstance, that St. John describes the Church as "having twelve foundations, and in them, the names of the twelve Apostles of the Lamb." (Rev. xxi. 14.) If Matthias were one of the Apostles in the peculiar sense of the term, then, after Paul's conversion, there were thirteen Apostles. "No man nor body of men," says M'Knight, "could, by their designation, confer an office, whose authority bound the consciences of all men, and whose duties could not be performed without the gifts of inspiration and miracles. To ordain an Apostle belonged to Christ alone, who, with the appointment, could also give the supernatural powers necessary to the function. Some time, therefore, after the election of Matthias, Jesus himself seems to have superseded it, by appointing another to be his apostle and witness in the place of Judas. In the choice of this new Apostle, Jesus had a view to the conversion of the Gentiles: which, of all the services allotted to the Apostles, was the most dangerous and difficult. For the person engaged in that work had to contend with the heathen priests, whose office and gains being annihilated by the spreading of the gospel, it was to be expected that they would oppose its preachers with an extreme rage. He had to contend, likewise, with the unbelieving Jews living in the heathen. countries, who would not fail to inflame the idolatrous multitude against any one who should preach salvation to the Gentiles, without requiring them to obey the law of Moses. The philosopliers too were to be encountered, who, no doubt, after their manner, would endeavour to overthrow the gospel by argument; whilst the magistrates and priests laboured to destroy it, by persecuting its preachers and abettors. The difficulty and danger of preaching to the Gentiles being so great, the person who engaged in it certainly needed an uncommon strength of mind, a great degree of religious zeal, a courage superior to every danger, and a patience of labour and suffering not to be exhausted, together with much prudence, to enable to avoid giving just offence to unbelievers. Besides these natural talents, education and literature were necessary in the person who attempted to convert

the Gentiles, that he might acquit himself with propriety, when called before kings and magistrates, and men of learning. All these talents and advantages Saul of Tarsus possessed in an eminent degree: and being a violent persecutor of the Christians, his testimony to the resurrection of Jesus would have the greater weight when he became a preacher of the gospel. Him, therefore, the Lord Jesus determined to make his Apostle in the room of Judas: and, for that purpose, he appeared to him from heaven, as he journeyed to Damascus, to persecute his disciples. And having convinced him of the truth of his resurrection, by thus appearing to him in person, he commissioned him to preach his resurrection to the Gentiles, together with the doctrines of the gospel, which were to be made known to him afterwards by revelation saying to him, Acts xxvi. 16. 1 have appeared to thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness, both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee; delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee; to open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness, &c. Such was the commission which Jesus in person gave to Saul of Tarsus, who afterwards was called Paul: so that, although he had not attended Jesus during his ministry, he was, in respect both of his election to the office, and of his fitness for it, rightly numbered with the Apostles.”—M'Knight's Prelim. Essays. Vol. I. p. 58, 59.

NOTE O. (Page 122.)

Every one knows the divisions of the fourteenth century, which divided all the West about the occurrence of two antipopes. Both parties were extremely animated, they looked upon one another as excommunicated, as anti-christs, the enemies of God and his Church; they mutually anathematized one auother; they took up arms one against another, and made a bloody Urban VI. on his side, in a bull that began, "The vine

war.

of the Lord of Sabaoth, that is to say, the holy Church of Rome, has a great evil in her womb, and sends forth grievous sighs," &c. treats his anti-pope and his cardinals as children of iniquity and sons of perdition, vipers, wicked wretches animated with the spirit of the devil, schismatics, apostates, conspirators, blasphemers, &c. He deposed, and spoiled them of all their honours, dignities, prelacies, offices and benefits; he confiscated their goods, and declared their persons to be infamous and detestable; he excommunicated all those who believed, who received them, their defenders and favourers, and even those who should give them ecclesiastical burial, if they did not pull them out of the grave again with their own hands; he forbad all faithful people of what quality soever, even kings themselves, queens, emperors, to receive them into their lands, to give or to send them either bread, or wine, or meat, or wood, or money, or merchandise.

"He excommunicated particularly all those who should hold his competitor, for Pope, or who should call him Pope, or who should receive any favours, indulgences, dignities, or prelacies from him. And as if all this had not been enough, he ordained a holy crusade against those schismatics and those condemned. persons, to pursue and root them out, under the same privileges which are given to those who take up arms for the conquest of the holy land.

"He absolved also the subjects of those princes who should acknowledge his anti-pope, of their oath of allegiance, and he excommunicated those subjects themselves if they should yield any obedience to their sovereigns. On the other side, Clement VII. who kept his seat at Avignon, was not wanting to proceed against Urban and his followers, and to treat him and his party with the same heat that Urban had shewed against him. See here differences which were methinks sufficiently heightened. Notwithstanding whatsoever animosity there was there between those two parties, whatsoever wars they made one against another, whatsoever anathemas they mutually thundered out, the Church of Rome has not failed to own and canonize for saints those persons who lived and died in those two contrary obedi

ences, and who even died in the hottest quarrels of those two anti-popes. For she has canonized on the one side St. Catherine of Sienna, who took part with Urban, and who treated his competitor as anti-christ, and a member of the devil, and his cardinals as devils incarnate; and on the other side, she has canonized Peter of Luxemburg, who died the cardinal of Clement VII. and who had received that dignity from his hands, against the express prohibition of Urban VI. under the pain of excommunication; so that here are two saints on the one and the other side lawfully excommunicated."-Claude's Defence, Vol. I. p. 283—

285.

NOTE P. (Page 147.)

A modern defender of the Roman Catholic faith, after quoting the decree of the Council of Trent respecting the communion of each kind, gives the following explanation of the unauthorised prohibition of the cup to the laity. I cite it as a specimen of special pleading, and an illustration of the way in which the authority of the Scriptures is set aside by the self-constituted authority of the Church of Rome. "It is admitted," says the author of " the Faith of Catholics"- -"that, from the earliest time, down to the twelfth century, the faithful of both sexes, laity as well as clergy, when they assisted at the public and solemn celebration of the Christian service, were admitted to communion, generally received under both kinds. But, during the same period, there seems never to have been any positive ecclesiastical precept so to do; for to infants, we often read, the communion was given sometimes under one kind, sometimes under another :-in times of persecution, or under difficulties, or when long journeys were undertaken, the consecrated bread was permitted to be carried away-the same was taken to the sick-where there was a repugnance to the taste of wine, the bread also was alone given. It may then, it seems, be said, that, unless on public and solemn occasions, the faithful, in the times of which we are speaking,